ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags "A Wilderness of Error" , "Fatal Vision" , errol morris , Jeffrey MacDonald , Joe MacGinniss , murder cases

Closed Thread
Old 8th January 2014, 08:55 AM   #481
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,602
I agree with you about Shipman. I know a doctor in Manchester who used to proclaim at family gatherings that he believed Shipman was innocent until the full facts came out. I think he used to correspond with him in prison. There had been other doctors, and others, who had raised suspicions about Shipman in the past with regard to the high number of deaths. It was not really until the obviously forged will of the former lady mayor was discovered by the police that any careful investigation was started.

Mistakes have been made in murder investigations in the past in the UK. I don't want to bore readers with the cases involved but there have been some quite recent cases where men have been released from prison after several years when it was discovered the murderer was somebody quite different. The media hardly mention those cases, possibly to avoid embarrassment.

I still think there are grave doubts in the MacDonald case and in the Ramsey case and Darlie Routier case in America. There are other cases which have never been given much publicity, like the wrongful imprisonment of the father of the little girl Riley Fox where another man's DNA was later discovered on the little murdered girl and he was then imprisoned.

The MacDonald case was a poor investigation with theories without facts and jumping to conclusions. How can the Army CID possibly say there was a rage over bedwetting because Kim was supposed to have wet the bed when they say the urine stain was tested after eighty weeks? It's amateurish.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th January 2014, 09:01 AM   #482
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 45,970
The MacDonald case seems to me to be about as close as you can possibly get to "guilty beyond reasonable doubt".

It is always possible to dream up unreasonable doubt, which you seem to have been doing for 17 pages now.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th January 2014, 02:52 PM   #483
lane99
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 684
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
...I still think there are grave doubts in the MacDonald case and in the Ramsey case...
Whether they qualify as "grave" is debatable. But it should be obvious to all but the Macdonald equivalent of interminable cut-and-paste polemicists such as "Harry Rag" (seen in the Amanda Knox case) that there is some degree of doubt about Macdonald's guilt. Quite simply there are countless cases for which there is less doubt about the accused's guilt than that which remains in the Macdonald case.

Incidentally, in the Ramsey case, your grave doubts are about what exactly? Because no one's ever been charged, let alone convicted, in the Ramsey girl's murder.
.
.
__________________
Qte: I wondered why the baseball was getting bigger. Then it hit me.


Twitter: @Perugiamurderfi
lane99 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th January 2014, 04:21 PM   #484
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,257
Thirty-Two Years In Prison And Counting

The only doubt about MacDonald's guilt has come from a few 4th Circuit judges, who concluded that the ramblings of an attention-seeking drug addict had some merit. In the opinion of the CID, FBI, DOJ, two District Court judges, and several 4th Circuit judges, there is NO doubt about MacDonald's guilt. IMO, when the Government gets a conviction in less than 7 hours and then proceeds to pitch a 7-0 shutout in the appellate system, any doubt about MacDonald's guilt is not based in reality.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 8th January 2014 at 04:31 PM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th January 2014, 05:04 PM   #485
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 45,970
IMO, I don't trust the opinion of any court implicitly, whether they deliberated for seven hours or seven months. All allegations of a miscarriage of justice deserve to be examined on their merits.

Looked. Guilty as hell.

Next?

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th January 2014, 08:10 PM   #486
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,668
I have noticed that it takes a lot (or more likely a complete lack of a lot) to get groups of judges to vote unanimously for or against something. There is often a split of two groups, or a holdout or two on a Civil Rights issue. When they come back unanimous it speaks volumes about the merits.
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th January 2014, 09:54 PM   #487
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,257
Legal Timeline

Shortly after the conclusion of the 1979 trial, jurors did a poll and the vote was 10-2 to convict. They deliberated for almost 7 hours and decided to convict MacDonald on 3 counts of murder. In 1980, the 4th Circuit Court overturned the verdict by a vote of 2-1. Their vote was based on speedy trial issues, not on the merits of the prosecution's case. In 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court re-instated MacDonald's conviction by a vote of 6-3.

The same 4th Circuit Court who overturned the trial verdict concurred with the U.S. Supreme Court by a vote of 3-0. After 18 months of freedom, MacDonald returned to prison and he has remained there for the past 32 years. In the past 30 years, MacDonald has had 8 chances at receiving a new trial and his current legal record is 0-7, with a decision on his 8th attempt to be made in the coming months.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 8th January 2014 at 09:58 PM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th January 2014, 12:10 AM   #488
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 11,434
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
...
In the past 30 years, MacDonald has had 8 chances at receiving a new trial and his current legal record is 0-7, with a decision on his 8th attempt to be made in the coming months.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Just curious, what issues would he raise in an eighth attempt? As I understand it (as a non-lawyer), a new appeal has to raise issues that have not been previously considered. Does MacDonald think he's got something new? Or is my understanding incorrect?

Also, who's paying for MacDonald's decades of litigation? Does he have a defense fund? Are there really people who take his story so seriously that they are giving him money?
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th January 2014, 12:19 AM   #489
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
 
AdMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 10,293
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
This is a weird thread. A number of people have come into it, had a look at the evidence, and I don't think a single one has ended up with any serious doubt that MacDonald was as guilty as hell.

I've met cases where obviously innocent people have been convicted. I've met cases where people with no credible evidence against them have been convicted. I've met cases where people were convicted on evidence that really wasn't convincing. I've come across people declaring that although they believe the accused actually did it, the conviction shouldn't have been brought because the evidence wasn't beyond reasonable doubt. We can have interesting discussions about all of these.

Here we have someone who was obviously guilty as hell, and there's one poster - count him, just one - breathlessly asserting the complete and total innocence of his hero "Dr. MacDonald". I'm not quite sure why anyone is bothering with this.

Rolfe.

I agree. I liked Fatal Vision and reading that and more about the case it's obvious MacDonald is guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt.

What the one poster disputing that here is trying to accomplish is a good question. He does not appear to be doing a very good job changing anyone's mind.
__________________
As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities.
- Voltaire.
AdMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th January 2014, 03:02 AM   #490
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 45,970
Originally Posted by kookbreaker View Post
I have noticed that it takes a lot (or more likely a complete lack of a lot) to get groups of judges to vote unanimously for or against something. There is often a split of two groups, or a holdout or two on a Civil Rights issue. When they come back unanimous it speaks volumes about the merits.

Unless they've done some sort of horse-trading deal behind the scenes so as to present a united front, of course.

Even without that, it's not even that unusual for a group of people discussing the same circumstances to make the same flawed leaps of reasoning, or to be influenced by one or two dominant personalities.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th January 2014, 01:55 PM   #491
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,257
Several Chances

Althought they've had their collective asses kicked at several evidentiary hearings, MacDonald's lawyers have done a good job of getting him back into court.

1980 Defense argues before the 4th Circuit Court that MacDonald should receive a new trial or be granted relief due to speedy trial issues.

1982 Defense argues before the Supreme Court that the 4th Circuit's decision to grant MacDonald relief should be upheld.

1982 Defense argues before the 4th Circuit Court that MacDonald should receive a new trial or be granted relief due to speedy trial issues.

1984 Defense argues before the 4th Circuit Court that MacDonald should receive a new trial or be granted relief based on 7 pieces of "new" evidence.

1989 Defense argues before District Court Judge Franklin Dupree that MacDonald should receive a new trial or be granted relief based on unsourced fiber evidence not known to the Defense at trial.

1992 Defense argues before the 4th Circuit Court that MacDonald should receive a new trial or be granted relief based on unsourced fiber evidence not known to the Defense at trial.

1995 Defense argues before District Court Judge James Fox that MacDonald should receive a new trial or be granted relief based on evidence allegedly hidden from the Defense by the Government.

2006 Defense argues before District Court Judge James Fox that MacDonald should receive a new trial or be granted relief based on DNA test results and information contained in the affidavits of Jimmy Britt.

2011 Defense argues before the 4th Circuit Court that MacDonald should receive a new trial or be granted relief based on the "evidence as a whole."

2012 Defense argues before District Court Judge James Fox that MacDonald should receive a new trial or be granted relief based on the "evidence as a whole." This includes previously litigated evidentiary arguments.

From 1970-1983, MacDonald's legal team consisted of a core group led by Bernie Segal and Wade Smith. Once MacDonald returned to prison, however, he went through several legal teams. MacDonald paid out of pocket for his legal fees from 1970-1988. From 1989-2011, MacDonald's legal representation was pro bono with the accompanying legal fees being taken care of by his defense fund. In 2012, he hired Gordon Widenhouse to represent him and MacDonald used his mother's trust fund to pay for Widenhouse's legal services.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 9th January 2014 at 02:32 PM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th January 2014, 04:30 AM   #492
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,602
Originally Posted by lane99 View Post
Incidentally, in the Ramsey case, your grave doubts are about what exactly? Because no one's ever been charged, let alone convicted, in the Ramsey girl's murder.
.
.
In the Ramsey case practically all the public forums are biased against the Ramseys. Most have them have the quite ludicrously unsatisfactory idea that Burke did it. It was really only because of the Boulder DA, Alex Hunter, who always used to say quite rightly that you don't prosecute unless you have enough evidence, and his suspicions of Fleet White, that no Ramsey was ever imprisoned. The Ramseys could also afford first-class lawyers. There was no such DA in the MacDonald case.

Most of MacDonald's lawyers have been working pro bono in the past, or working for nothing in plain English. His previous lawyers did some excellent legal work in obtaining the 2012 Evidentiary Hearing, mainly I think because of this 'evidence as a whole' court ruling from somewhere which seemed to have swayed the Fourth Circuit judges.

Those previous lawyers then seemed to have resigned from the case, perhaps for financial reasons, and it looked for a time as though the 2012 Evidentiary Hearing would be in the hands of a public defender lawyer, who might not have been a first-class lawyer.

Then somehow Widenhouse became the new MacDonald lawyer. He seems to be financed by the MacDonald Defense fund. He is supposed to be an expert at appeals but I am not sure what he can do because Judge Fox is biased, and Judge Fox uses the law's delay and a rubber stamp for Murtagh to keep MacDonald in prison.

It looks as though finance was provided by somebody because Judge Fox made a ruling, which is on the internet on Christina's site, that such finance would be confidential. I believe payments to the MacDonald Defense Fund can be legally tax deductible.

I have often thought that private detectives should be employed by the MacDonald lawyers for the careful investigation of the real culprits, since the police and Army CID and FBI are too lazy and incompetent to do it themselves.

MacDonald did finance detectives like Gunderson and Detective Beasley and Shedlick when he was first imprisoned, but he ran out of money before those detectives could take the next logical steps, and then ask questions and information received and gossip and digging up of facts of the real culprits. I agree MacDonald should have done that before he was convicted, but he probably didn't then want the endless expense and anxiety of it all.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th January 2014, 11:56 AM   #493
desertgal
Illuminator
 
desertgal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,198
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
In the Ramsey case practically all the public forums are biased against the Ramseys. Most have them have the quite ludicrously unsatisfactory idea that Burke did it. It was really only because of the Boulder DA, Alex Hunter, who always used to say quite rightly that you don't prosecute unless you have enough evidence, and his suspicions of Fleet White, that no Ramsey was ever imprisoned. The Ramseys could also afford first-class lawyers. There was no such DA in the MacDonald case.
Actually, no Ramsey was ever imprisoned because no Ramsey was ever charged and convicted of the murder.

Where are these multiple forums whose members are convinced Burke Ramsey did it? Would it be possible for you to actually substantiate anything you say beyond "I read it on the Internet somewhere."
__________________
"It's obvious that you seem to be threatened by me for some reason and I find that extremely amusing." - Jodie
desertgal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th January 2014, 12:51 PM   #494
davefoc
Philosopher
 
davefoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: orange country, california
Posts: 9,428
It seems that the murder of one's family including small children by the father is a rare event and usually the perpetrator is caught immediately because they are some form or crazy.

Assuming the above is true this makes the MacDonald case something of an anomaly. Has there ever been evidence put forth as to possible MacDonald motives? It seems like somebody suggested above that MacDonald might have been crazed because he took some kind of drug? Did MacDonald have a mistress? Outside of the murder, has there ever been evidence put forth for any kind of violent behavior by MacDonald?

I asked a question above about how intruders could even be plausibly suggested as possible murderers if there wasn't some kind of footprint evidence of their presence in the blood on the floor. How much blood was on the floor and were there any indications that unidentified footprints in that blood were inconsistent with MacDonald footprints?
__________________
The way of truth is along the path of intellectual sincerity. -- Henry S. Pritchett

Perfection is the enemy of good enough -- Russian proverb

Last edited by davefoc; 10th January 2014 at 12:53 PM.
davefoc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th January 2014, 01:55 PM   #495
lane99
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 684
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
In the Ramsey case practically all the public forums are biased against the Ramseys...
I see. You meant you have doubts that the Ramseys deserve the vilification they have received over the years. Ok, I agree with you on that.

I was confused because the Ramseys were officially cleared of being suspects a few years ago. So I wondered if you meant that you had "grave doubts" about their innocence.
.
.
__________________
Qte: I wondered why the baseball was getting bigger. Then it hit me.


Twitter: @Perugiamurderfi

Last edited by lane99; 10th January 2014 at 01:57 PM. Reason: no apost
lane99 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th January 2014, 02:15 PM   #496
Tiktaalik
Half True Scotsperson
 
Tiktaalik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,666
Originally Posted by davefoc View Post
It seems that the murder of one's family including small children by the father is a rare event and usually the perpetrator is caught immediately because they are some form or crazy.

Assuming the above is true this makes the MacDonald case something of an anomaly. Has there ever been evidence put forth as to possible MacDonald motives? It seems like somebody suggested above that MacDonald might have been crazed because he took some kind of drug? Did MacDonald have a mistress? Outside of the murder, has there ever been evidence put forth for any kind of violent behavior by MacDonald?

I asked a question above about how intruders could even be plausibly suggested as possible murderers if there wasn't some kind of footprint evidence of their presence in the blood on the floor. How much blood was on the floor and were there any indications that unidentified footprints in that blood were inconsistent with MacDonald footprints?
(from memory, so excuse any inaccuracies):

There's a lot of evidence, which is gone over pretty meticulously in 'Fatal Vision', but no motive was ever established. MacDonald had a bunch of mistresses, but didn't seem to think it was wrong. He was taking amphetamines for weight-loss at the time and had likely been up for an inordinately long period of time as he worked multiple jobs; however, there's no proof that he experienced some sort of amphetamine rage. His wife had just returned from a class in child psychology that evening, and there is evidence that one of the daughters had wet the bed (not her own; the master bed, on MacDonald's side) and also evidence that the same child was grievously injured in the bedroom. There is evidence that Collette (wife) was struck in the bedroom (blood, both hers and small amounts of his, particularly on the pajama top) but she bled copiously in the younger daughter's bedroom, and yet somehow ended up back in the master bedroom. Her blood and pajama cuff imprints were found on a sheet, along with bloody cuff imprints from MacDonald's pajama top.

There's tons of other blood evidence. There was a lot of blood in the house in various places including each child's bedroom and the master bedroom. A unique thing about the case is, each member of the MacDonald household had a different type blood. This makes it possible to differentiate blood fairly easily and track the movements of each person throughout the house. No blood from anyone else, or footprints or any other personal evidence, was ever found. To me, the blood evidence, when broken down step by step, was extremely compelling.

Perhaps the most disturbing thing about the case to me is, blood evidence indicates that the youngest daughter was being held while she was stabbed to death. Besides the blood around her in the bed, her blood was found in a pool next to and down the side of the bed, a location indicating that she was likely sitting on someone's lap when she bled like that. And she had defensive wounds on her hands; she fought. She was two.
Tiktaalik is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th January 2014, 05:54 PM   #497
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,257
Motives And Bloody Prints

As I mentioned in a prior post, there were three bloody bare footprints found exiting Kristen's room. One of the bloody prints matched the left foot exemplar of Jeffrey MacDonald. Blood stains and bloody fabric impressions found on a blue bedsheet demonstrated that someone wearing Jeffrey MacDonald's torn blue pajama top carried Colette out of Kristen's room in that blue bedsheet.

The FBI's theory was that as MacDonald wrapped his wife's body in the blue bedsheet, he either stepped on his wife's bloody body or on a portion of the bloody bedsheet. As he was carrying his wife's body in a cradle position in the bedsheet, he formed 3 footprints in his wife's blood as he exited Kristen's room.

It defies all reason to believe that a band of drug-crazed hippies could avoid leaving bloody shoeprints at the crime scene. In terms of a motive in this case, this was the least significant aspect of the prosecution's case. They focused exclusively on the mass of physical evidence linking MacDonald to these murders. There were several possible motives for this crime.

- MacDonald had at least 8 affairs and the CID was convinced that the more accurate figure was 15.

- In addition to his Army duties, MacDonald was working 2 jobs and seeking a 3rd moonlighting job. Friends and acquaintances commented to the CID that MacDonald seemed exhausted during that time period.

- MacDonald admitted in his diary that he may have ingested amphetamines for weight loss in the weeks leading up to the murders.

- Colette told her sister in-law that she was aware of her husband's cheating ways.

- Despite the fact that Colette experienced severe medical complications when giving birth to her two children, MacDonald was planning on being with his former girlfriend when Colette was expected to deliver their third child. MacDonald's ruse was that he was going to be in Russia to serve as the staff physician for the Fort Bragg boxing team.

- Despite his claim that Kristen had wet his side of the master bed, serology reports demonstrated that the source of the urine stain was Kimberley. Blood evidence proved that Kimberley was hit with the club in the master bedroom and then carried in a blue bedsheet back to her bedroom.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2014, 01:10 AM   #498
davefoc
Philosopher
 
davefoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: orange country, california
Posts: 9,428
I realize I am repeating this question but what is it that the pro-innocence side is hanging their hat on here. If there is blood all over the place how is it possible that there were intruders at the murder scene that left no footprints in the blood?

It seems like I must not understand something here.
__________________
The way of truth is along the path of intellectual sincerity. -- Henry S. Pritchett

Perfection is the enemy of good enough -- Russian proverb
davefoc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2014, 03:51 AM   #499
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,602
Originally Posted by desertgal View Post

Where are these multiple forums whose members are convinced Burke Ramsey did it? Would it be possible for you to actually substantiate anything you say beyond "I read it on the Internet somewhere."
There are several biased anti-Ramsey forums on the internet like Forums for Justice and Websleuths and Topix.net JonBenet Ramsey forum, and even Crimeshots. There used to be a pro-Ramsey forum, Jameson's forum, but that is now defunct. There is one pro-Ramsey private forum.

The blood trail and footprints and pajama-like fibers in the MacDonald case do not prove MacDonald did it. Not all the witnesses who know exactly what happened and who have knowledge in relation to the crime are dead.

I know the victims had different blood types but that was mainly used by the prosecution to manufacture a theory that bodies had supposedly been carried in a sheet put forward by the purported expert FBI hair and fiber man and former insurance salesman Stombaugh.

There were never rivers of blood anyway which you would know if you had a thorough grasp of the subject and were acquainted with the whole business of the MacDonald case. To say there must have been footprints of intruders is a silly remark. How many murder cases do you know about where the footprint of the murderer was found at a crime scene? When visitors or other people visit your home they very rarely leave any footprints. It isn't a very clever criminal who leaves any of his blood or fingerprints behind.

About thirty people had tramped across the crime scene in the MacDonald case before there was any analysis of the blood evidence. There was no protection of the crime scene or crime scene manager. That was contamination.

The Army CID must learn how to elicit information from potential suspects and not just to jump to conclusions. They are not professional homicide detectives.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2014, 07:11 AM   #500
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,257
Lone Explanation

MacDonald advocates hang their hats on the CLAIM that the CID contaminated the crime scene to the point where "crucial" evidence of MacDonald's innocence was altered or destroyed. Lead CID investigator Peter Kearns scoffed at this CLAIM, stating that there was no concrete evidence that the actions of Army MP's and/or CID investigators altered any of the blood and fiber evidence that linked MacDonald to these murders.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2014, 08:29 AM   #501
desertgal
Illuminator
 
desertgal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,198
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There are several biased anti-Ramsey forums on the internet like Forums for Justice and Websleuths and Topix.net JonBenet Ramsey forum, and even Crimeshots. There used to be a pro-Ramsey forum, Jameson's forum, but that is now defunct. There is one pro-Ramsey private forum.

The blood trail and footprints and pajama-like fibers in the MacDonald case do not prove MacDonald did it. Not all the witnesses who know exactly what happened and who have knowledge in relation to the crime are dead.

I know the victims had different blood types but that was mainly used by the prosecution to manufacture a theory that bodies had supposedly been carried in a sheet put forward by the purported expert FBI hair and fiber man and former insurance salesman Stombaugh.

There were never rivers of blood anyway which you would know if you had a thorough grasp of the subject and were acquainted with the whole business of the MacDonald case. To say there must have been footprints of intruders is a silly remark. How many murder cases do you know about where the footprint of the murderer was found at a crime scene? When visitors or other people visit your home they very rarely leave any footprints. It isn't a very clever criminal who leaves any of his blood or fingerprints behind.

About thirty people had tramped across the crime scene in the MacDonald case before there was any analysis of the blood evidence. There was no protection of the crime scene or crime scene manager. That was contamination.

The Army CID must learn how to elicit information from potential suspects and not just to jump to conclusions. They are not professional homicide detectives.
Who are you talking to? You quoted me, but I asked you only about your "grave doubts" in the Ramsey case. I never said any of the above about the Macdonald case, "silly remarks" or otherwise.

Try using the quote function properly in your nonsensical rants.
__________________
"It's obvious that you seem to be threatened by me for some reason and I find that extremely amusing." - Jodie
desertgal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2014, 09:57 AM   #502
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,602
I'm sorry if it wasn't you who mentioned footprints but you people all seem to say the same sort of thing. I fully appreciate that footprints can have forensic significance but they are rather like fingerprints. Murder investigators hope to find footprints but they do not expect to find footprints unless the murderers get careless.

Kearns of the Army CID was not an experienced homicide detective and he did not get it right in the MacDonald case. He was the goon who was 'sure' MacDonald was lying about Kristen wetting the bed and so he ordered the urine stain to be tested after eighty weeks to somehow prove it was Kim's. You don't have to have an expert opinion to know that a test like that can't possibly be scientifically correct.

Kearns then went to New York to tell the Kassabs that MacDonald was a womanizer. The point is that though you might be a pro-Nazi Catholic, being a womanizer is not necessarily relevant to a murder investigation. What about President Kennedy and Clinton and Hollande of France then?

The blood and fiber evidence is very far from being overwhelming. I agree there was blood supposedly found in strange places, but it can be unfair to ask MacDonald to explain that. It could have come from the murder weapon dripping blood from different victims. He had nothing to do with it. The pajama-like fibers is extremely weak evidence and highly controversial.

There is a bit about this matter on an internet website:

http://www.themacdonaldcase.org/Lisson.htm

"A small brown hair in Colette's left hand.(59) This hair was tested and matched neither MacDonald nor anyone else present at the crime scene. (100)
Both Kimberly and Kristen had brown hairs found under their fingernails. CID lab reports indicate that these hairs did not match one another, nor did they match MacDonald. (59) Both hair samples remained unreported evidence.
In addition to the hair and fiber evidence on the victims, a twenty-two inch synthetic blond wig hair was found on a brush on the telephone seat near where MacDonald said he saw the blond female. (60)

The Boston Globe ran an article about the 1990 effort led by Harvey Silvergate to set aside MacDonald's conviction based on evidence suppressed at the first trial. Evidence outlined in the article includes black wool fibers on Colette's mouth, shoulder, and on one of the murder weapons, all discovered by FBI forensic expert James Frier. The black wool fibers, in addition to several other unidentified green, brown, and white wool fibers, were not matched to any clothes present in the MacDonald home, and were not disclosed by the prosecutor at the trial, according to the court filing. (1)

Fatal Justice states that during the MacDonald trial the prosecution released no evidence or lab reports to the defense. Because the prosecutor, Brian Murtagh, insisted that the lab reports held nothing to support MacDonald's claims, the judge refused to make Murtagh release the lab documents to the defense.(131) The Freedom of Information act released these reports years after the trial ended, providing MacDonald's defense team with a list of potential evidence which was not accurately released to the jury at the MacDonald trial, and therefore could form the basis for an appeal."
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2014, 10:20 AM   #503
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,257
You're Late To The Party, Pal

As usual, Henri is late to the party. His internet reference was published 10 years before DNA test results sourced that brown hair to Jeffrey MacDonald. Henri's pot shot at Peter Kearns is laughable. Kearns did an incredible job overseeing the CID's massive 2 year investigation and Henri leaves out the fact that during a 1971 interview, Kearns made MacDonald look foolish.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2014, 01:21 PM   #504
yodaluver28
Muse
 
yodaluver28's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 569
Originally Posted by davefoc View Post
I realize I am repeating this question but what is it that the pro-innocence side is hanging their hat on here. If there is blood all over the place how is it possible that there were intruders at the murder scene that left no footprints in the blood?

It seems like I must not understand something here.

There seem to be two basic types of people in the pro-innocence camp:


1) Conspiracy theorists who think the government had to be involved in the murders and/or coverup because they happened on a military base and anything involving the military is inherently suspicious to them.

2) People, many of them women, who've bought into Jeffrey MacDonald's cult of personality. He's a charismatic sociopath and they are very good at attracting loyalists and groupies. He is particularly skilled at manipulating his.
__________________
Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering. We must have the deepest commitment, the most serious mind-Jedi Master Yoda.
yodaluver28 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th January 2014, 11:15 AM   #505
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,602
I don't think the military are necessarily too incompetent to solve a difficult murder. The problem with the MacDonald case is that the military Army CID wrongly thought it was an open and shut case from the start and they then decided Dr. MacDonald did it and they have been fixated on him, and only him, ever since.

There needed to be specialist homicide detectives and a specialist homicide squad on the case who were experienced in following evidence, and in developing suspects. A competent judge was needed to weigh and test the evidence, unlike Judge Dupree and his pal Judge Fox. Judge Dupree once made the stupid remark that it somehow proved Dr. MacDonald was lying about not wearing his glasses during the MacDonald murders because a speck of blood was found on his glasses!

I fully appreciate that being a homicide detective can be a frustrating and stressful job. A homicide detective can know that the talk on the street is that 'Johnny' did it but he is unable to charge or prosecute him because of insufficient evidence and a lack of a confession. That doesn't mean that the police and prosecutors should then manufacture and fabricate evidence and use forensic fraud to secure a conviction, or use third degree methods to secure a confession. That can lead to a miscarriage of justice.

A senior officer in charge of a murder investigation should act in a professional manner and look for hard evidence. That never happened in the MacDonald case. It was a shambles and the evidence was made up.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 12th January 2014 at 11:20 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th January 2014, 01:05 PM   #506
desertgal
Illuminator
 
desertgal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,198
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I'm sorry if it wasn't you who mentioned footprints but you people all seem to say the same sort of thing. I fully appreciate that footprints can have forensic significance but they are rather like fingerprints. Murder investigators hope to find footprints but they do not expect to find footprints unless the murderers get careless.
I don't know what you mean by "you people". My determination of Macdonald's guilt is not wholly based on the absence of intruder footprints, and I never said it was, or anything else about footprints, so there is no "if".

Learn how to read and properly disseminate information, because your conclusions are laughable.
__________________
"It's obvious that you seem to be threatened by me for some reason and I find that extremely amusing." - Jodie

Last edited by desertgal; 12th January 2014 at 01:36 PM.
desertgal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th January 2014, 01:26 PM   #507
lane99
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 684
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
...It isn't a very clever criminal who leaves any of his blood or fingerprints behind...
Well you wouldn't expect a group of drug crazed hippies would be particularly clever or conscientious, would you?

Certainly the Manson Family killers left their fingerprints at the Sharon Tate crime scene.
.
.
__________________
Qte: I wondered why the baseball was getting bigger. Then it hit me.


Twitter: @Perugiamurderfi
lane99 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th January 2014, 01:28 PM   #508
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,668
Henri, your entire argument seems to be based on saying things that you have no evidence for. Claims that investigations were 'botched' (without proof) or just handwaving away evidence with the claim that the people who gathered it were 'incompetant'. Nothing you have produce has shown any of these claims to be based in reality. You need to step up your game because right now your arguments reek of people who speak in echo chambers or have never needed to provide evidence of their assertions and just got used to saying them over and over with the assumption that they will be taken as fact.
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th January 2014, 03:13 PM   #509
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 45,970
Henri and JTF seem just to be talking past each other, posting their different manifestos. It just so happens that JTF's is the one the evidence supports.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th January 2014, 06:15 PM   #510
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,257
The Truth

ROLFE: Actually, I've responded DIRECTLY to Henri and every other MacDonald advocate for the past decade. It doesn't matter if it's an author proclaiming MacDonald's innocence, an attorney representing MacDonald, or a MacDonald groupie spinning his or her special brand of propaganda. I've challenged each and every one of them with documented fact. I enjoy being a minor thorn in the side of the MacDonald camp.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 12th January 2014 at 06:17 PM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th January 2014, 01:50 AM   #511
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,257
Journalist Or Con Man

Speaking of author's who write books proclaiming MacDonald's innocence, Errol Morris told me in 2011, that "it is unlikely that Judge Fox will grant Jeff a new trial." That was one of the few moments of honesty for an author who didn't hesitate to peddle his mess of a book to fawning members of the print and television media.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th January 2014, 09:06 AM   #512
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,602
It's cruel and callous to prosecute an innocent man with manufactured evidence and then land that person in financial ruin. The criminal law is a clumsy machine.

The MacDonald case needs an extremely competent judge who is experienced at weighing evidence and who can seize the situation like a man and who has a bit of humane wisdom, instead of judges just using the law's delay and working for the prosecution. It's only because officialdom never admits a mistake and they don't want any political embarrassment.

The so-called detectives on the MacDonald case were very inexperienced with regard to difficult murders. They did not get it right. There were judges in the past in the Supreme Court who were in disagreement with the decision to send Dr. MacDonald back to prison but they were always outnumbered. Those judges had their reasons and they should never have been disregarded.

If Judge Fox and Joe McGinniss and JTF and Murtagh are to have the final decision on a man's liberty then God help us all.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th January 2014, 04:59 PM   #513
desertgal
Illuminator
 
desertgal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,198
Once again, Henri, you make arguments that are unsupported by evidence.

In case you aren't aware, JTF, Murtagh, and Joe McGinniss didn't decide Macdonald's fate. A jury did. Actually, Macdonald did, the moment he began slaughtering his pregnant wife and little daughters. You know, the same victims you always blithely disregard when you are boo-hooing about Jeff Macdonald.

It's a better thing Jeff Macdonald doesn't have a say about anyone's liberty or life. We all saw what happened when he did.
__________________
"It's obvious that you seem to be threatened by me for some reason and I find that extremely amusing." - Jodie
desertgal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th January 2014, 03:16 AM   #514
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
 
AdMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 10,293
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It's cruel and callous to prosecute an innocent man with manufactured evidence and then land that person in financial ruin.
It sure would be, had it happened in this case

Thankfully, it clearly and obviously didn't.
__________________
As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities.
- Voltaire.
AdMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th January 2014, 06:42 AM   #515
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 22,892
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It's cruel and callous to prosecute an innocent man with manufactured evidence and then land that person in financial ruin. The criminal law is a clumsy machine.<snip>
Indeed. Luckily in the case of Jeffrey MacDonald the guilty-beyond-reasonable-doubt murderer was convicted, thus preventing him from killing again, and avoiding prosecution of the innocent.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th January 2014, 06:36 PM   #516
desertgal
Illuminator
 
desertgal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,198
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It's cruel and callous to prosecute an innocent man with manufactured evidence and then land that person in financial ruin.
"Financial ruin"? Good thing he hasn't been "wrongfully imprisoned" all these years, too, because that would really suck.
__________________
"It's obvious that you seem to be threatened by me for some reason and I find that extremely amusing." - Jodie
desertgal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th January 2014, 08:55 PM   #517
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,257
Matching Pattern

Henri is semi-correct in stating that the evidence was manufactured. Some of the key pieces of evidence presented at trial were manufactured by none other than Jeffrey MacDonald. For example, the Pajama Top Theory was made possible by the fact that MacDonald stabbed his wife 21 times through his pajama top which resulted in 48 perfectly round holes in that garment.

The Pathologist's report determined that Colette's body was inert when she was stabbed and all 48 holes in the garment were perfectly round, indicating that the garment was stationary when penetrated by the ice pick.

When reconstructing the position of the pajama top as it was found on Colette's chest, the pattern of stab wounds on Colette's chest matched the puncture hole pattern in MacDonald's pajama top. Case closed.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th January 2014, 08:28 AM   #518
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,602
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
When reconstructing the position of the pajama top as it was found on Colette's chest, the pattern of stab wounds on Colette's chest matched the puncture hole pattern in MacDonald's pajama top. Case closed.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
The Stombaugh and Shirley Green pajama folding experiment is hardly conclusive evidence. Dr. Thornton at the 1979 trial testified that it was impossible and contrived and conceptually unsound. It was never mentioned at the Article 32 proceedings in 1970. Stombaugh was a con man, like Murtagh and Blackburn and Joe McGinniss. It was fabricated out of whole cloth in order to sway a gullible jury. Stombaugh also presented false evidence to the Warren Commission regarding fibers in the President Kennedy murder.

Stombaugh openly admitted that his theories, like Colette hitting her husband with a hairbrush, were speculation at the MacDonald Grand Jury. The point is that speculation is illegal, and inadmissible in court under the Federal Rules of Evidence. A good judge would have had that pajama folding business tested instead of just accepting it as the gospel truth.

Prosecuting an innocent man doesn't prevent murders. The real culprits should have been relentlessly pursued.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th January 2014, 08:39 AM   #519
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,602
Segal wasn't semi-correct about Stombaugh. He was absolutely correct. A more aggressive defense lawyer would have had Stombaugh withdrawn as a a witness for being a purported expert, even though the judge was biased for the prosecution.

I don't think MacDonald's lawyer Bernie Segal regarded Stombaugh of the FBI as a brilliant man in the way JTF thinks of Stombaugh. This is from the 1979 MacDonald trial:

B E N C H C O N F E R E N C E

MR. SEGAL: Your Honor, we have no further objection that this witness be heard by the Court as a witness on hairs and fiber identification.

We think there is an inadequate basis to qualify him as an expert in the so-called area of fabric damage or fabric impressions. We can find nothing in the examination to support his claim of being a certified expert in those areas.

He can't name a single case where he has ever been accepted by any court as an expert in those areas. And absent such corroboration, it is generally vague and self-serving to call himself an expert in those matters. He has no academic training that he can point to. He says he read some FBI bulletin in that regard.
For those reasons, I would suggest most seriously that he should not be received in that area.
Secondly, I would say to Your Honor that his testimony indicates again the desirability of our being able to subpoena his personnel record in reference to that. Again, I would not in any way seek to embarrass this man in any kind of matters not related to his qualifications. I am not looking to do anything on that level.

But I do think when he is offered as a multi-faceted expert and where he is unable because of--I suppose that the jury could decide that the poor man's memory just doesn't help him. We should be able to develop facts. Perhaps at a later time I would say we may go forward. But we could have the record down here very fast if the Court would agree that we are entitled and should be able in the interest of fairness to do this.

He represents, Your Honor, Dr. MacDonald's testimony to the grand jury. And his testimony represents the so-called new facts in this case. He is, as the Government has constantly told everyone, very important to their theory of this case. We must take the Government at face value. I think the Defendant in fairness ought to be able to find out something more about this man.

I will tell you that the other day, Your Honor, when Mr. Murtagh said that he went to the University of South Carolina and took his degree in chemistry, we discovered that he did not go to the University of South Carolina. We now know it is Furman.

We have been in no way able to get any information about his background and the extent of his expertise in these areas. And for that reason I would say, one, that we defer--perhaps at least defer that, receiving testimony on fabric impressions; and two, permit us to renew our subpoena on his personnel record for the basis of checking his qualifications on that subject matter."
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th January 2014, 04:58 PM   #520
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,257
Pajama Top

HENRI: Still on that Stombaugh Wasn't Qualified kick, eh? I hate to break it to ya, but repeating a dubious claim over and over again doesn't magically enhance its credibility. The Pajama Top Theory was based on SEVERAL factors and Shirley Green was able to replicate the wound/puncture hole pattern using THREE separate techniques. The reality is that Segal was unable to cast doubt on the authenticity of the Pajama Top Theory.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 17th January 2014 at 04:59 PM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:05 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.